Yes, that is mistaken. This list plays no role in the OSI license
approval process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a
license that has not been submitted for OSI approval.
Richard
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
>
https://opensource.org/approval
Yep, you get to start this all over again. :)
A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal.
On 8/22/16, 4:45 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.
I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be
submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to
license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this?
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:l
I'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this
mailing list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for
OSI approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The
license review process is described at https://opensource.org/approval.
I haven't followed
OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water, what about the
ARL OSL? Is it also, dead, and if so, why? Leave aside the license
proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed with the ARL OSL to
make it acceptable.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Mess
ll Bruce Perens' involvement in the
CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI take
a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard provisions dealing
with patents, having remembered the discussion of the MXM license in
~2009, rather than an approach that would be explainable sole
ample was their own code.gov site
> released under CC0*.
Well, it _is_ open source.
Endless variant forms of permissive licences are.
___________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
On 8/19/16, 6:55 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Rick Moen"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of r...@linuxmafia.com>
wrote:
>Speaking for Creative Commons, Christopher Allan Webber appears to have
>correctly understood this feedback to be _n
e, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a
> > license is open source if it passes the OSD then we should either
> > amend the OSD to require explicit patent grants moving forward or
> > not block useful new licenses because of the lack of a patent grant.
&g
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:54PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> If the USG is using CC0 for their new OSS initiative
> is this something that should be revisited?
Yes, I think so.
> Of course, you know I¹m of the opinion that is the OSI states a license is
> open source if it pa
Army at 201, DHHS at 214.
-- Scott
- Original Message -
From: "Nigel H. Tzeng" <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu>
To: "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>, license-discuss@opensource.org
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02:35 PM
Subject: Re: [License-discu
From: License-discuss
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>>
on behalf of "lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>"
<lro...@rosenlaw.com<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com>>
>There are other important
Exactly. Anyone that gets something from the USG deserves to know that they
won't be facing a patent lawsuit from any of the contributors.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris DiBo
S WORKS probably contain public domain content, this is ANOTHER
example not involving aging.
The USG and ARL are not unique. Public domain is what it is for software works
for everyone here (and probably abroad too). A unique FOSS license isn't
necessary to "protect copyrights" in publi
We apply for and are granted patents on a regular basis at ARL. In fact, part
of how scientists and engineers are evaluated on their performance can include
the number of patents they get, all of which are owned by the USG.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: L
USG patents aren't public domain, and USG can and does license them for
royalties.
I believe there are a handful of examples of USG filing infringement suits as
well.
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Brian Behlendorf <br...@behlendorf.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do those fol
to get that sorted.
Brian
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't
consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source
at all.
On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <nig
esumably any place where this public domain arises, it applies to patents
> too. Would be nice to get that sorted.
>
> Brian
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Chris DiBona wrote:
>> In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I
>> wouldn't consider a no
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:45 PM, license-discuss-requ...@opensource.org wrote:
>
> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
>license-discuss@opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.o
DiBona wrote:
In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I wouldn't
consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as being open source
at all.
On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
On 8/18/16, 3
In military contracting , patent grants are key to the point where I
wouldn't consider a non patent granting license from, say, lockheed as
being open source at all.
On Aug 18, 2016 3:05 PM, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "L
On 8/18/16, 3:57 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Lawrence Rosen"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of lro...@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:
>Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I
>>would think tha
There likely will be some USG-only discussion beforehand, but since there are
a lot of people to coordinate on this, the sooner I get started, the better.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:26 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-
)
but it would at least be useful if the lawyers that approved the release
of code.gov under CC0 could tell your lawyers why they thought it was
sufficient. Especially if these are the same set of lawyers providing
legal guidance to the White House OMB 20% OSS mandate.
On 8/18/16, 4:36 PM, "Li
On 8/18/16, 4:24 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
font...@opensource.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> From: License-discuss
>><lice
ay be able to
convince the ARL attorneys to talk to outside attorneys, but they will be VERY
unhappy if anyone else is coming in on the line. There are good legal reasons
for this; please don't try to sneak in.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto
"I don't believe that there is an OSD requirement that the lawyers on
License-Review/License-Discuss agree that the legal concern being addressed by
a new license submission is valid. *Especially when other lawyers disagree.*"
The problem is, I think to many of us comme
>Cem Karan wrote:
>> The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a
>> strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license
>> that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2].
>We understand t
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 07:15:52PM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> From: License-discuss
> <license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>>
> on behalf of "Smith, McCoy"
> <mccoy.sm...@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.sm...
> -Original Message-
> From: Wheeler, David A [mailto:dwhee...@ida.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:52 PM
> To: legal-disc...@apache.org
> Cc: Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com>; Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
&
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:35 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: [N
; Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>;
> license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Research
> Laboratory Open Source License proposal
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
> identity of the send
Diane Peters scripsit:
> Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would
> be invalidated by a court? Please say more.
Because we don't know what law a foreign court would apply. It might
apply the Berne Convention, and say "This work has a copyright t
Nigel Tzeng wrote:
> The issue here is for code that is potentially quite substantial. I would
> think that would be a different scenario.
If I include the works of Shakespeare in my software, it would of course be
substantial and yet still be public domain almost everywhere (?). I lice
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:04 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD
On 8/18/16, 11:03 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana"
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org on behalf of
font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>As a few have pointed out, all code that is nominally licensed under
>open source licenses will contain noncopyrighted
from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.”
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary (re Section 105), H.R. Rep. No. 1476,
94th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1976)
Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would
be invalidated by a court? Please say more.
On Thu, Aug 18
From: License-discuss
<license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>>
on behalf of "Smith, McCoy"
<mccoy.sm...@intel.com<mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>>
> Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is
ww.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Being understandable rather than obscurantist poses certain
risks, in that one's opinions are clear and therefore falsifiable
in the light of new data, but it has the advantage of encouraging
feedback from others. --James A. Matisoff
___
nce Rosen [mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:15 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S.
Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL
I suggest using the Apache contribution license agreements rather than Apache
itself.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:04 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:25 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD
The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a
strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license
that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts [2]. If
the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:59 PM
> To: license-discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Sou
Interestingly enough, the code of the code.gov site is licensed under CC0 1.0:
https://github.com/presidential-innovation-fellows/code-gov-web/blob/master/LICENSE.md
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Chris DiBona
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016
, the issues around
existing open source licenses will be identified clearly) on behalf of all the
USG:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:50:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> >
> > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, why
> > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
>
> Are you suggesting a dual l
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:33 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD
; years, the drafting of a new "open source" license requires strong reasons.
> The reasons that I have seen in the list don't meet that standard. I
> strongly recommend against trying to develop a new "open source" license.
>
> -Original Message-
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Smith, McCoy wrote:
I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this
mailing list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at,
debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this
submission -- who think that your proposed license
r contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the problem via a
>> simple
>> disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues.
>
> Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code,
> why is a new license needed for contributors other th
Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be ones
that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI licenses, including
Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license upon.
I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this mailing
, we would. We need to handle ALL the issues.
Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code,
why is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL?
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opens
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source
the materials for which liability is
disclaimed is not licensable because it is in the public domain. The very
problem the ARL lawyers are saying this new license proposal is attempting to
solve.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Smith, McCoy
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Rese
> The issue is the one that the Apache 2.0 license solves, and that the ARL OSL
> is attempting to solve for works that don't have copyright attached.
> Basically, clause 3 in each of the licenses means that you can't contribute
> software that has patents on it, and then sue everyo
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:36 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re:
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott K Peterson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:35 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Rese
, the entire Apache 2.0 license (including the patent
grants, and the disclaimer of warranties) would be rendered null & void as a
result. Perhaps the lawyers from ARL are telling you that; if so, perhaps you
could invite them to the conversation.
I think many people on here are skept
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:10 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [No
> that the person was the first one in the chain to break the contract.
>
> Copyright is something entirely different from contract law. Copyright is a
> bundle of rights that an author gets by creating a work. The license allows a
> user to use the work without getting sued/stopped/et
Keran, your description of the "chain" is not usually correct for FOSS. The
Apache and GPL and MPL licenses don't have to work that way through
sublicensing. Each licensee receives his or her license directly from the
licensor. There is no chain. The licensor (contractor) can direct
n informs the software license choice
issues being discussed in this thread?
I'm sorry. I clearly have not been paying enough attention to this thread. I
have been engaged in issues at the intersection of patents and standards since
before patent enforcement by Rambus attracted the attention o
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:03:18PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US
> As for 'license vs. contract', was that something discussed in
> relation to the ARL OSL?
No, that's a much older topic of debate in open source. It's safe to
say from your previous remarks that ARL a
Here are the problems:
1) ARL doesn't know if it can use copyright-based licenses on public domain
software. In particular, will the entire license be held invalid, including
the disclaimers, if the copyright portions are held to be invalid?
2) Liability is only one part of the puzzle; as I
over patent
violations. There are a few other, similar tricks that can be done that the
Apache 2.0 license and the ARL OSL license attempt to avoid.
If you think that this is a paranoid fear, read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits to see what we're trying to
avoid.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:34 AM
> To: license-discuss <license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source
-based license (presumably that the whole license would
be found invalid due to no copyright, not just the copyright statement bits).
I don't agree that would happen as DoJ makes a determination of liability under
their own tort/negligence criteria, but also not tested except for cases of
gross
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> Is this a resurrection of the old "license vs. contract" dispute that
> we buried long ago?
That is not dead which can eternal lie (see .sig).
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa
domain portion of a
work, within the limitations of the law -- can still be effective in a FOSS
license.
Why does the Army Research Laboratory confuse the distribution of a work under
a waiver of liability with the ownership (or not) of its embedded copyrights?
Is this a resurrection of the old
Maybe.
But given that CC0 expressly does not convey patent rights, and I believe the
intent here is to convey patent rights (via an express license, as in Apache
2.0), CC0 may not be an option the USG wants here.
[although CC0 with a plug-in patent grant might work]
From: License-discuss
fective?
>
>
> Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it
> would be a potential option. ;)
>
>
>
> As it stands, the board's public position to not recommend using CC0 on
> software [1] due to its patent clause makes it problematic.
The po
entirely waived in many jurisdictions despite the warranty and liability
language in the software license. And liability for intentional torts cannot be
waived.
You can't throw banana peels at the front of the parade and expect to be
forgiven for injuries.
Other than that, waiver of liabili
as been waived). I believe that to be an effective waiver of liability, despite the fact
that there is not copyright rights being conveyed. Does anyone believe that that waiver
is ineffective?
Gee, if only legal-review had approved CC0 as an open source license, it would
be a potential option. ;)
As it
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> OK, but wouldn't those changes mean that the license no longer applies to the
> uncopyrightable portions? That would mean that downstream users would no
> longer have any
Source or Object form, provided that You
meet the following conditions:
(a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
Derivative Works a copy of this License, except when the Work
or Derivative Work is not subject to copyright; and
(b) You must cause
Comments inline below.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Engel Nyst
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss]
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) <cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote:
> "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
> and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
You may want
ains to data, specifically not software, but is framed the
same.
If it was developed exclusively at private expense, the Gov’t has limited
rights and cannot release. In that case, it’s up to the contractor.
Cheers!
Sean
___
License-discuss mailing list
Lic
The ARL OSL does not change anything in the DFARS clauses; as I understand it
(I am not a lawyer) the USG would have to have all the rights necessary to
release the code before it could do so.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discus
Cam,
Could you describe what the impact would be to contractors under DFARS
clauses 252.227-7013/7014 and ARL OSL? In particular where software was
developed at private expense or mixed funding and the government has less
than unlimited rights.
Regards,
Nigel
On 8/8/16, 8:32 AM, "Li
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 4:37 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re:
The problem is that while the original USG works don't have copyright, works
produced by contributors may. E.g., any code supplied by contractors, anything
provided by persons outside the USG, etc. We need to have a license that both
protects those individuals, and ensures that they don't use
Cem Karan wrote:
> The theory for contract-based licenses like the ARL OSL is that either a)
> everyone keeps to the terms of the license (forming a chain), or b) if
> someone breaks the terms, they have broken the contract with their immediate
> predecessor in the chain
t;
> I think the confusion here is indeed about ownership vs, access, As I
> understand Cem’s project he wants to provide access to third parties to its
> code and wants to ‘license’ it. However open source license (afaik) deal
> with the ownership part of the code and does not de
rce.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
standing if they
tried to take anyone to court. I agree that it’s “bad practice” but mostly
because it creates marketplace confusion and doesn’t conform with the OSD.
The difference here, I think, is that the contract/license is not aiming to
restrict access or use of the code. On the contrary
gt; On 8/5/16 4:28 PM, William Edney wrote:
>
> Miles -
>
> You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License:
> https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
>
> Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent is the same "pay for
> privacy" business model now e
get help from
OSI.
_______
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Keep in mind also that if you have any plans to accept contributions to
this codebase (having it be an open source project, instead of just open
source software), using such a license could be quite an impediment. Having
additional copyright holders, who are potentially involved in any actions
you
answer:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-December/018777.html
There are those who disagree, myself included. (And what makes Engel
Nyst the last word on such matters?)
The OSD says:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the sof
ce.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-December/018777.html
--
Cheers, Grossman's Law: "In time of crisis, people do not rise to
Rick Moen the occasion. They fall to the level of their training."
r...@linuxmafia.com http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.h
Thanks, Bill!
Can you say any more about how that's working for you in practice?
Best,
Miles
On 8/5/16 4:28 PM, William Edney wrote:
Miles -
You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License:
https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent
r own local machine: FOSS
- run it on your own host (including an enterprise host): FOSS
- run it on some other host, for your own use: FOSS
- run it on a host for non-commercial use (e.g, an organization
providing service to its members): FOSS
- rut it as a SaaS, charge for it: OSS with a licens
Miles -
You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License:
https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent is the same "pay for
privacy" business model now enjoyed by companies such as GitHub. In fact,
we couch our commercial offering as
place for trying to do that.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
T
Thanks for the starting points, folks.
I'm starting to think something like a dual license
- AGPL for non-commercial uses (AGPL + borrow some of the language from
CC BY-NC-*), and,
- Most of the terms of AGPL (re. download of source, etc.) + a license
fee for commercial use in an SaaS offering
OSL and use Apache
2.0 instead (I've floated the idea of an Apache 2.1 or 3.0 that addressed the
copyright issue on the ASF Legal Discuss mailing list, but haven't had any
interest yet). By the way, the Apache 2.0 license is fairly permissive; in
practice, it just prevents bad actors from
401 - 500 of 4096 matches
Mail list logo
